Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a "balanced" attack and a way to score runs without a home run if needed...but regardless of whatever style you want to play, you have to have the talent to make it happen, period.

Lip

LITTLE NELL

09-29-2010, 06:52 PM

Excellent recap on our season.

Tragg

09-29-2010, 07:08 PM

Great piece by Sox Machine's Jim Margalus. It's so spot on.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Dear-John-letters-Your-2010-Chicago-White-Sox?urn=mlb-273381
Good piece.
But plenty still claim Peavy, Jackson, and Marquez plus $20 million additional salary per year is much better than Gio, Richard and Hudson.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-29-2010, 09:16 PM

I watched a couple of innings tonight for the first time in awhile (for fantasy baseball purposes) and saw what pretty much sums up this season for me:

1. Sacrifice bunt in the sixth that leads to zero runs.

2. Vizquel striking out with the bases loaded and one out

3. Kotsay GIDP with the bases loaded and one out.

Fortunately they managed to score a few between those happenings.

doublem23

09-29-2010, 09:24 PM

Good piece.
But plenty still claim Peavy, Jackson, and Marquez plus $20 million additional salary per year is much better than Gio, Richard and Hudson.

If you're talking on pure baseball skill, what actually happens between the white chalk lines, it is absolutely undeniable that Peavy + Jackson is better than Gio, Richard, and Hudson. I mean, that's not even a fair fight.

It only evens out when you talk about the crazy amount of money you save, but A) this is a team that pisses money away on bums like Linebrink and Teahen and B) what's the point of investing all that cash in your lineup if 3/5 of your rotation is ****?

soltrain21

09-29-2010, 09:43 PM

If you're talking on pure baseball skill, what actually happens between the white chalk lines, it is absolutely undeniable that Peavy + Jackson is better than Gio, Richard, and Hudson. I mean, that's not even a fair fight.

It only evens out when you talk about the crazy amount of money you save, but A) this is a team that pisses money away on bums like Linebrink and Teahen and B) what's the point of investing all that cash in your lineup if 3/5 of your rotation is ****?

How can you say Gio is bad?

BringHomeDaBacon

09-29-2010, 09:49 PM

If you're talking on pure baseball skill, what actually happens between the white chalk lines, it is absolutely undeniable that Peavy + Jackson is better than Gio, Richard, and Hudson. I mean, that's not even a fair fight.

Let's see - Jackson's ERA this year is 4.51(203 IP) and Peavy's is 4.63 (107 IP) and he hasn't pitched more than 107 innings since 2008. Meanwhile Gio is at 3.35 (193 IP), Richard is at 3.71 (196 IP), and Hudson is at 2.45 (79 IP).

Far cry from "undeniable". Additionally, the arrow on Peavy is pointing down, on Jackson it's sideways at best and its "undeniable" that the arrows on Gio, Richard and Hudson are all pointing up.

doublem23

09-30-2010, 11:26 AM

How can you say Gio is bad?

Look at what happens to him when he's not pitching in a ballpark with more foul territory than Rhode Island.

He also gets enormous help from Oakland's gigantic outfield, his BAA on fly balls is a remote .188. He also puts the ball in the air a ton, a .99 GB/FB ration (over 20% higher than the league average).

In short, Gio is a nice guy to have, and uses Oakland to his advantages. In a small, HR-friendly park such as ours, he would get murdered.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 11:36 AM

Look at what happens to him when he's not pitching in a ballpark with more foul territory than Rhode Island.

He also gets enormous help from Oakland's gigantic outfield, his BAA on fly balls is a remote .188. He also puts the ball in the air a ton, a .99 GB/FB ration (over 20% higher than the league average).

In short, Gio is a nice guy to have, and uses Oakland to his advantages. In a small, HR-friendly park such as ours, he would get murdered.

Let's see - Jackson's ERA this year is 4.51(203 IP) and Peavy's is 4.63 (107 IP) and he hasn't pitched more than 107 innings since 2008. Meanwhile Gio is at 3.35 (193 IP), Richard is at 3.71 (196 IP), and Hudson is at 2.45 (79 IP).

Far cry from "undeniable". Additionally, the arrow on Peavy is pointing down, on Jackson it's sideways at best and its "undeniable" that the arrows on Gio, Richard and Hudson are all pointing up.

I would say Jackson's arrow is pointing up. Even with citing ERA as your as you measuring stick. Jackson's ERA is down to 4.51 from well over 5 since we acquired him. His sox era is awesome and he doesn't walk guys anymore. You can try to spin it anyway you like but Jackson has been good.

And yet he pitched better at the Cell than he did on the road in 2010.

:scratch:

doublem23

09-30-2010, 11:44 AM

I would say Jackson's arrow is pointing up. Even with citing ERA as your as you measuring stick. Jackson's ERA is down to 4.51 from well over 5 since we acquired him. His sox era is awesome and he doesn't walk guys anymore. You can try to spin it anyway you like but Jackson has been good.

Yeah, I would also note that the Sox's pitching coaching staff has an established track record of results with pitchers like Jackson; guys with tremendous stuff but command issues. Obviously, his time with the Sox has been minimal, but he's had 10 starts with the Sox, several have been fantastic and he's only really laid 1 stinker (of course, a game I was at). His performance is completely acceptable from a 4/5 starter.

Carolina Kenny

09-30-2010, 11:44 AM

Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a "balanced" attack and a way to score runs without a home run if needed...but regardless of whatever style you want to play, you have to have the talent to make it happen, period.

Lip

This is an example of why the print media is going the way of the dino.

Joe Cowley invents crap and guys like Jim M. understand the fans.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 11:47 AM

And yet he pitched better at the Cell than he did on the road in 2010.

:scratch:

Yeah, those 107 IP this year trumps what the previous 1362 IP has shown.

doublem23

09-30-2010, 11:55 AM

Yeah, those 107 IP this year trumps what the previous 1362 IP has shown.

Well of course, about 300 of those 1300 don't really factor into your argument either since Petco didn't open until 2004. Either way, obviously Peavy pitches better at Petco than elswhere, 2 of his division rivals play in Coors Field and Chase Park, two insane hitter's parks. But really, when the guy is on, he's just on. Take his 2007 season, the 2nd time he won the Cy Young Award, when he pitched as well on the road as he did at home.

If you want to poo poo all over Jake Peavy because of his injury that's fine, but remember there's no established track record of guys coming back from this type of injury because it never really happens. None of us have any idea how he will respond in 2011, could have a great year and have no symptoms. Could fall apart completely. But there's no denying that when he's pitching as well as he is capable of, he's about, a gajillion times better than Gio, Hudson, or any of the other castoffs the Sox have parted ways with recently.

guillen4life13

09-30-2010, 12:01 PM

Well of course, about 300 of those 1300 don't really factor into your argument either since Petco didn't open until 2004. Either way, obviously Peavy pitches better at Petco than elswhere, 2 of his division rivals play in Coors Field and Chase Park, two insane hitter's parks. But really, when the guy is on, he's just on. Take his 2007 season, the 2nd time he won the Cy Young Award, when he pitched as well on the road as he did at home.

If you want to poo poo all over Jake Peavy because of his injury that's fine, but remember there's no established track record of guys coming back from this type of injury because it never really happens. None of us have any idea how he will respond in 2011, could have a great year and have no symptoms. Could fall apart completely. But there's no denying that when he's pitching as well as he is capable of, he's about, a gajillion times better than Gio, Hudson, or any of the other castoffs the Sox have parted ways with recently.

Peavy has only won a single CYA.

Tragg

09-30-2010, 12:06 PM

If you're talking on pure baseball skill, what actually happens between the white chalk lines, it is absolutely undeniable that Peavy + Jackson is better than Gio, Richard, and Hudson. I mean, that's not even a fair fight.

It only evens out when you talk about the crazy amount of money you save, but A) this is a team that pisses money away on bums like Linebrink and Teahen and B) what's the point of investing all that cash in your lineup if 3/5 of your rotation is ****?
And if skill doesn't translate into production, what do you have? Hudson, Gio and Richard are producing, regardless of what you think their skill level is.
This is the analysis that gives us AJ Burnett as an "elite" pitcher. He may have elite skill, but he isn't close to an elite pitcher and never was for any sustained period of time.

And then you can't ignore the additional $20 mill we're paying for Jackson and Peavy....$25 million if you'd put all 3 of gio/hud/rich on the team.

I'll take those 3 plus Danks and MB and $25 million to spend over what we have now any time, any place.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 12:06 PM

Well of course, about 300 of those 1300 don't really factor into your argument either since Petco didn't open until 2004. Either way, obviously Peavy pitches better at Petco than elswhere, 2 of his division rivals play in Coors Field and Chase Park, two insane hitter's parks. But really, when the guy is on, he's just on. Take his 2007 season, the 2nd time he won the Cy Young Award, when he pitched as well on the road as he did at home.

If you want to poo poo all over Jake Peavy because of his injury that's fine, but remember there's no established track record of guys coming back from this type of injury because it never really happens. None of us have any idea how he will respond in 2011, could have a great year and have no symptoms. Could fall apart completely. But there's no denying that when he's pitching as well as he is capable of, he's about, a gajillion times better than Gio, Hudson, or any of the other castoffs the Sox have parted ways with recently.

I agree with everything that you've said and for $15 mil, $16 mil and $17 mil he should be better than those guys. The problem is that he's not all that much better anymore. The team would be MUCH better off with any one of those guys and $15 mil, $16 mil and $17 mil worth of position player(s).

khan

09-30-2010, 02:34 PM

His performance is completely acceptable from a 4/5 starter.

Out of curiosity:

Is there another 4/5 starter [outside the Yankees' or red sawx staffs] that is paid as much as Jackson?

I don't believe so, and I believe that he is absolutely overpaid for what is expected out of him. I'll agree that it doesn't help that there are two $14M+/yr guys already in the rotation that are underperforming expectations, but expecting 4/5 starter performance out of $8.5M/yr is a problem, too.

Chez

09-30-2010, 02:41 PM

Out of curiosity:

Is there another 4/5 starter [outside the Yankees' or red sawx staffs] that is paid as much as Jackson?

I don't believe so, and I believe that he is absolutely overpaid for what is expected out of him. I'll agree that it doesn't help that there are two $14M+/yr guys already in the rotation that are underperforming expectations, but expecting 4/5 starter performance out of $8.5M/yr is a problem, too.

Ted Lilly does not belong on that list. Edwin Jackson, however, absolutely does. A list of underperforming pitchers with bad contracts.

Chez

09-30-2010, 03:05 PM

Ted Lilly does not belong on that list. Edwin Jackson, however, absolutely does. A list of underperforming pitchers with bad contracts.

Khan asked the question -- name another 4/5 starter who makes as much as Edwin Jackson. The list provides at least a partial answer. Nothing more. Lilly is the Dodgers #4 behind Kershaw, Billingsley and Kuo and he makes more money than Jackson -- so he belongs on the list.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 03:09 PM

Khan asked the question -- name another 4/5 starter who makes as much as Edwin Jackson. The list provides at least a partial answer. Nothing more. Lilly is the Dodgers #4 behind Kershaw, Billingsley and Kuo and he makes more money than Jackson -- so he belongs on the list.

Fair enough.

khan

09-30-2010, 03:20 PM

In looking at these names, there's a trend of guys that were signed to be higher up in the food chain, but failed, such as Zito, Westbrook, Bonderman and perhaps Jackson.

There are a few who had career years, and their stupid GMs overpaid for them, such as Lohse and Jackson.

There are a few who were higher up in their rotations, but on failing teams who were then moved, such as Lilly and Jackson.

In any case, none of these contracts match their initial expectations of the pitcher or the teams for which they initially signed. NONE of these contracts are good, either. Few of these contracts are on teams that are contending, and the ones that are have #1s or 2s that are performing well. [Perhaps their teams are NOT contending because of bad contracts that waste resources.]

In looking at these names, there's a trend of guys that were signed to be higher up in the food chain, but failed, such as Zito, Westbrook, Bonderman and perhaps Jackson.

There are a few who had career years, and their stupid GMs overpaid for them, such as Lohse and Jackson.

There are a few who were higher up in their rotations, but on failing teams who were then moved, such as Lilly and Jackson.

In any case, none of these contracts match their initial expectations of the pitcher or the teams for which they initially signed. NONE of these contracts are good, either. Few of these contracts are on teams that are contending, and the ones that are have #1s or 2s that are performing well. [Perhaps their teams are NOT contending because of bad contracts that waste resources.]

Another thing that those contracts have in common is that they were all signed when the economy was in much better shape overall. That tier of pitcher won't sniff those numbers again for awhile. It's silly to acquire contracts that were signed back then.

Chez

09-30-2010, 03:29 PM

In looking at these names, there's a trend of guys that were signed to be higher up in the food chain, but failed, such as Zito, Westbrook, Bonderman and perhaps Jackson.

There are a few who had career years, and their stupid GMs overpaid for them, such as Lohse and Jackson.

There are a few who were higher up in their rotations, but on failing teams who were then moved, such as Lilly and Jackson.

In any case, none of these contracts match their initial expectations of the pitcher or the teams for which they initially signed. NONE of these contracts are good, either. Few of these contracts are on teams that are contending, and the ones that are have #1s or 2s that are performing well. [Perhaps their teams are NOT contending because of bad contracts that waste resources.]

And, of course, Dice-K, Javy Vazquez and Andy Pettite/A.J. Burnett all make more than Jackson. But you asked to exclude Boston and NYY.

khan

09-30-2010, 03:39 PM

Another thing that those contracts have in common is that they were all signed when the economy was in much better shape overall. That tier of pitcher won't sniff those numbers again for awhile. It's silly to acquire contracts that were signed back then.
You know, I'd thought about that too. And I think that's a cogent point.

And, of course, Dice-K, Javy Vazquez and Andy Pettite/A.J. Burnett all make more than Jackson. But you asked to exclude Boston and NYY.
Indeed. I actually expected this to be the case, but then these teams are a tier or two above our SOX in terms of what they can and are willing to spend.

But for the record:

Daisuke's performance has been WAY BELOW his expectations and pay. I would say likewise, for Burnett and Vazquez.

Only Pettite, out of ALL these highly paid names in this post or your previous post, is really performing to a high level.

Well sure. But it's performance and not slot in the rotation which is key. If Jackson wins 15-18 games next season as the Sox #2, 3, 4 or 5, he will have earned his salary.

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 04:10 PM

Well sure. But it's performance and not slot in the rotation which is key. If Jackson wins 15-18 games next season as the Sox #2, 3, 4 or 5, he will have earned his salary.

Going back to that list and all those contract years, other than Ted Lilly, I don't think there's a single 15-18 win season accomplished after the big signing in that whole bunch.

Chez

09-30-2010, 04:29 PM

Going back to that list and all those contract years, other than Ted Lilly, I don't think there's a single 15-18 win season accomplished after the big signing in that whole bunch.

If you include the Boston and NYY pitchers there are. But the list is of #4/5 starters. There aren't many 4/5 starters, regardless of their salary, with 15-18 wins. There are plenty of starters -- regardless of their slot in the rotation -- who have won 15-18 games. Many make more money than Jackson. Many make less than Jackson. I guess I just don't fully accept Khan's statement that Jackson is overpaid simply because [Khan says] he's a #4 starter. If he wins 15-18 games, he's worth his salary and will have pitched like a #2 -- if we must assign our starters a slot. Whether Hudson for Jackson was a good deal is a different issue that's already been discussed ad nauseum. I've given myself a headache. :D:

BringHomeDaBacon

09-30-2010, 04:47 PM

If you include the Boston and NYY pitchers there are. But the list is of #4/5 starters. There aren't many 4/5 starters, regardless of their salary, with 15-18 wins. There are plenty of starters -- regardless of their slot in the rotation -- who have won 15-18 games. Many make more money than Jackson. Many make less than Jackson. I guess I just don't fully accept Khan's statement that Jackson is overpaid simply because [Khan says] he's a #4 starter. If he wins 15-18 games, he's worth his salary and will have pitched like a #2 -- if we must assign our starters a slot. Whether Hudson for Jackson was a good deal is a different issue that's already been discussed ad nauseum. I've given myself a headache. :D:

I don't think that Khan's point was that he's overpaid because he's #4 in the White Sox rotation, he's overpaid he would be a #4 in most contending rotations. For that kind of money you should be getting a guy that has performed better than your standard #4 starter.

khan

09-30-2010, 04:48 PM

Well sure. But it's performance and not slot in the rotation which is key. If Jackson wins 15-18 games next season as the Sox #2, 3, 4 or 5, he will have earned his salary.
I could agree with it, if the 15-18 wins were accompanied by more valid measures, like 200+ IP, a WHIP below 1.3, or an ERA+ above 100.

OTOH, Jon Garland's win totals have been inflated when he won a boatload of games with the SOX.

If you include the Boston and NYY pitchers there are. But the list is of #4/5 starters. There aren't many 4/5 starters, regardless of their salary, with 15-18 wins. There are plenty of starters -- regardless of their slot in the rotation -- who have won 15-18 games. Many make more money than Jackson. Many make less than Jackson. [B]I guess I just don't fully accept Khan's statement that Jackson is overpaid simply because [Khan says] he's a #4 starter. If he wins 15-18 games, he's worth his salary and will have pitched like a #2 -- if we must assign our starters a slot. Whether Hudson for Jackson was a good deal is a different issue that's already been discussed ad nauseum. I've given myself a headache. :D:
The bolded part is a fair statement.

And again, wins are a team metric, not a good measurement of a pitcher. I think that regardless of who you slot where, Jackson's level of performance can be had at a much-lower price than his. Your list of pitchers that are MORE expensive than he are all underperformers, save for one. [pettite, who may or may not still be cheating]

For a team like the SOX that have above-average money, a farm system devoid of talent, and some obvious holes in the team, any squandering of resources is an impediment to being competitive.

khan

09-30-2010, 04:51 PM

I don't think that Khan's point was that he's overpaid because he's #4 in the White Sox rotation, he's overpaid he would be a #4 in most contending rotations. For that kind of money you should be getting a guy that has performed better than your standard #4 starter.

Thank you. You've stated more succinctly what I've been trying to state.